Greenland and the ethics of annexation

President Trump has repeatedly called for U.S. acquisition of Greenland.  The motivations have to do with Greenland’s strategic location and access to its mineral reserves.  Neither the government of Denmark (of which Greenland is a territory), nor the people of Greenland themselves, are in favor of the idea.  Not only is Trump undeterred by those facts, he has repeatedly refused to rule out the possibility of using military force to annex the island.  For example, in January, when asked whether he could assure the world that he would not resort to military coercion to get control of Greenland, Trump replied “No, I can’t assure you” and “I’m not going to commit to that.”  Asked this month about using military force to take Greenland, Trump said that “it could happen, something could happen with Greenland” and “I don’t rule it out.”

Pope Leo XIV

Let us pray for our new pope, Leo XIV.  His choices to take a traditional name and to appear in traditional papal garb (as Benedict XVI did and Francis did not) are small but encouraging signs of a man who subordinates himself to the papal office and understands the importance of continuity with the past.

The ethics of wealth and poverty

In my latest essay at Postliberal Order, I discuss what Christ, the Fathers of the Church, and Aristotle have to say about the moral hazards of riches.

Catholicism and immigration: Reply to Cory and Sweeney

Recently, my article “A Catholic Defense of Enforcing Immigration Laws” appeared at Public Discourse.  Both Therese Cory and Terence Sweeney have raised criticisms of the article.  In a new article at Public Discourse, I reply to them.

The pope’s first duty

Let us pray for the repose of the soul of Pope Francis.  We ought to pray no less fervently that God in His mercy will bless His Church with a new pope of the kind she most needs at this time in her history.  As the cardinals begin to think about a successor, it is appropriate for them, and for us, to recall that the first duty of any pope is to preserve undiluted the deposit of faith.  It concerns sound doctrine even more than sound practice, because practice can be sound only when doctrine is sound.  This is something those electing a new pope should always keep first and foremost in mind.  But reminders are especially important today, when the Church faces greater doctrinal confusion than perhaps at any previous time.

The two thieves

Christ was not crucified alone.  Of those who died with him, Luke’s Gospel tells us the following:

There were also two others, criminals, led with Him to be put to death.  And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the criminals, one on the right hand and the other on the left… Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.”  But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation?  And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.”  Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.”  And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:32-33, 39-43, NKJV)

On the tariff crisis

Like many others across the political spectrum, I’ve been alarmed at the extreme tariff policy President Trump announced last week, which was met by a massive drop in the stock market.  As with almost everything else he does, the policy was nevertheless instantly embraced with enthusiasm by his most devoted followers, who have glibly dismissed all concerns and assured us that we are on the cusp of a golden age.  If this does not sound like the conclusion of careful and dispassionate reasoning, that is because it isn’t.  Whatever the outcome of Trump’s policy, the flippant boosterism with which it has been put forward and defended is contrary to reason.

On pride and vainglory

Pride, as Aquinas defines it in De Malo, is “the inordinate desire for pre-eminence” (Question 8, Article 2). With Augustine and the Christian tradition in general, he teaches that it is “the greatest sin” and indeed “the root and queen of all sins.” Its immediate effect is “vainglory,” which is the vice of habitually seeking to call attention to one’s own imagined excellence. And the daughters of vainglory, Aquinas tells us (Question 9, Article 3), are disobedience, boasting, hypocrisy (by which Aquinas means a tendency to magnify one’s glory by reference to “imaginary deeds”), contention, obstinacy, discord, and what he calls the “audacity for novelties” or predilection for bold actions that will call attention to oneself by bringing “astonishment” to others.

Scholastic regress arguments

Many are familiar with arguments to the effect that an infinite regress of causes is impossible, as Aquinas holds in several of his Five Ways of proving God’s existence.  Fewer correctly understand how the reasoning of such arguments is actually supposed to work in Scholastic writers like Aquinas.  Fewer still are aware that the basic structure of this sort of reasoning has parallels in other Scholastic regress arguments concerning the nature of mind, of knowledge, and of action.  Comparing these sorts of arguments can be illuminating.

Immortal Souls on the Classical Theism Podcast

Recently I was interviewed at some length by John DeRosa for the Classical Theism Podcast, about my book Immortal Souls: A Treatise on Human Nature. You can listen to the interview here.

Catholicism and immigration

My article “A Catholic Defense of Enforcing Immigration Laws” appears at Public Discourse.

Liberalism’s catastrophic spider

In my latest essay at Postliberal Order, I argue that, whatever Kant’s own intentions, the Kantian rhetoric of autonomy and respect for persons has allowed modern liberalism to cloak a radical subversion of natural law and Christian moral theology behind the veil of “human dignity.”

Life, Reproduction, and the Paradox of Evolution

My article “Life, Reproduction, and the Paradox of Evolution” appears in a special issue of the journal BioCosmos devoted to exploring the nature of life. (And fear not, dear reader, the articles are open access rather than behind a paywall.)

Mackie on Pascal’s Wager

I’ve never been a fan of Pascal’s Wager.  But there’s a bit more that one might say for it than is often supposed.  For example, the objections J. L. Mackie raises against it in his classic defense of atheism The Miracle of Theism, though important, are not fatal.  Let’s take a look at the argument, at Mackie’s objections, and at how a defender of Pascal might reply to them.

What proceeds from Hart (Updated)

Epilogue 2/22: As those who have read the updates to this post will have learned, David Bentley Hart has apologized for the offending remarks and has had them removed from the documentary.  He has also let me know that the interview was recorded years ago, that he did not remember that it included those remarks, and that he would not have allowed them to remain in it if he had remembered them.  Accordingly, I retract my statement that he "has no honor."  He has shown himself to be honorable indeed, and I happily accept and appreciate his apology.

Every time a truce between David Bentley Hart and me has been broken, it has been broken by him.  And more than once, friendly and fence-mending exchanges in private have been followed by a public shivving on his part.  The man has no honor.  In a new documentary, he casually remarks that “Feser… really is a person for whom Christianity is mostly about, you know, killing people or, or you know, it’s about beating them.”  The surrounding remarks are no less nasty.  (Readers who don’t want to watch the entire thing can fast forward to about 57 minutes into it.)

Immigration and academia on The Tom Woods Show

This week I appear on The Tom Woods Show to discuss the immigration debate, the state of academic philosophy, and other matters.

Trump’s Gaza proposal is gravely immoral

Today my critique of Trump’s Gaza proposal appears at the National Catholic Register.  Friends, whether you agree or disagree, I urge you to allow your opinions on this grave matter to be molded only by dispassionate reason and moral principle rather than anger and partisanship.

Just war principles and the Mexican drug cartels

In my latest article at Postliberal Order, I argue that under certain conditions, U.S. military intervention in Mexico against the drug cartels would be justifiable according to the principles of traditional just war theory.

Catholics and immigration on No Spin News (Updated)

Those who follow me on Twitter/X will know that I posted there heavily last week about the controversy over Catholicism and immigration.  This evening, I appear on Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News program to discuss the controversy.  O'Reilly Premium Members can watch the segment here.

UPDATE 2/5: You can now watch the interview here.

More on Immortal Souls

The latest feedback on Immortal Souls: A Treatise on Human Nature.  At Twitter/X, theologian Ulrich Lehner writes: “A wonderful book. Sharply sharply argued, readable, and always illuminating.”  Szilvay Gergely kindly reviews the book in the Hungarian magazine Mandiner.  From the review: “Feser… can argue surprisingly effectively and convincingly… If you considered the immortality of the soul (and the whole person) to be an unsupported myth, then Feser shows that this is not the case.”

The ethics of invective

It’s often said that while sticks and stones can break our bones, words can never hurt us.  But it isn’t true.  Were we mere animals it would be true, but we’re not.  We are rational social animals.  Hence we can be harmed, not only in ways that injure the body, but also in ways that bring distress to the mind and damage our standing with our fellow human beings.  These harms are typically not as grave as those involving bodily trauma, but they are real harms all the same.  Indeed, mockery and the loss of one’s good name can even be felt by one who suffers them as worse than (at least some) bodily harms. 

A report from the Great Los Angeles Fire

On the extent, causes, and lessons of the disaster, in my latest article at Postliberal Order.

The thread you’ve been waiting for

Let’s close out 2024 and begin 2025 with a long overdue open thread.  Now’s your chance to get that otherwise off-topic comment posted at last.  From plate tectonics to Hooked on Phonics, from substance abuse to substance dualism, from Thomism to Tom Tom Club, everything is on-topic.  Trolls still not welcome, though, so keep it sane and civil.

Previous open threads archived here.

Boczar on Immortal Souls

At The Review of Metaphysics, philosopher Jack Boczar kindly reviews my book Immortal Souls: A Treatise on Human Nature.  From the review:

“The book's title is an homage to David Hume, and Feser has certainly taken Hume to task, giving cogent arguments for the reality of the self (chapter 2), freedom of the will (chapter 4), immateriality of the intellect (chapter 8), and more…

It is with contemporary developments in the philosophy of mind where Feser is at his best, and readers will not be disappointed with his critique of positions such as Buddhism's no-self doctrine (chapter 2)…

Feser again is at his best in cogently establishing the immateriality of the intellect.  He puts forth various arguments.  His most powerful argument is a modified version of James Ross's argument from the indeterminacy of the physical (chapter 8)… One of the unique contributions that Feser makes to contemporary literature is his defense of the immateriality of the intellect from its simplicity (chapter 8).  Readers should pay close attention to this powerful argument.”

Gilson on philosophy and its history

You might suppose from the title of Etienne Gilson’s The Unity of Philosophical Experience that it is a book about philosophy in general.  And ultimately it is.  But its bulk is devoted to detailed accounts of the ideas of thinkers Gilson regards as having gotten things badly wrong, such as Abelard, Ockham, Descartes, Malebranche, Kant, and Comte.  There is relatively little about thinkers Gilson regards as having gotten things largely right, such as Aristotle and Aquinas.  This might seem odd.  For the sympathetic reader might suppose that the experience of philosophers like Aristotle and Aquinas should surely count as least as much as (indeed, more than) that of more wayward thinkers, when elucidating the nature of philosophy.

Nicholson on Immortal Souls

At Catholic World Report, philosopher Sam Nicholson kindly reviews my book Immortal Souls: A Treatise on Human Nature.  From the review:

"As its title suggests, Immortal Souls by Edward Feser provides a robust philosophical defense of the immortality of the soul.  The scope of the book reaches far beyond this one topic, however, as Feser methodically exposits and defends the entire Aristotelian-Thomist metaphysics of the human person, addressing in depth such topics as personal identity, freedom of the will, perception and cognition, phenomenal consciousness, and artificial intelligence.  The result is an extraordinarily comprehensive and detailed sweep through contemporary philosophy of mind, addressing nearly every major topic of interest.  Feser makes a forceful case that Thomism remains a live option, able to resolve many seemingly intractable problems at the intersection of philosophy and the sciences of cognition…

Full interview on Pints with Aquinas

My recent three-hour interview with Matt Fradd on Pints with Aquinas is now available in its entirety at YouTube.  The discussion is wide-ranging, covering the current state of the Catholic Church, papal history, contemporary U.S. politics, atheism and theism, the sexual revolution and its transformation of the Western world, philosophical skepticism, artificial intelligence, integralism, and much else.

Pints with Aquinas interview (Updated)

Recently Matt Fradd kindly had me on Pints with Aquinas for a wide-ranging three-hour interview. At the moment, the full interview is available to members but an excerpt has been posted today at YouTube, wherein Matt and I discuss the current state of the Catholic Church.

UPDATE 12/3: Today a second excerpt has been posted at YouTube, wherein Matt and I discuss the question of what would falsify Catholicism.

Zubia on Hume and liberalism

“Hume’s Trojan Horse,” my review of Aaron Alexander Zubia’s new book The Political Thought of David Hume: The Origins of Liberalism and the Modern Political Imagination, appears in the Fall 2024 issue of the Claremont Review of Books.

Popper’s via negativa

Negative theology (also known as apophatic theology) is an approach to the study of the divine nature that emphasizes that our knowledge of God is (either largely or wholly, depending on how far one wants to take this) knowledge of what God is not, rather than what God is.  There is an interesting parallelism between this idea and Karl Popper’s account of the nature of scientific knowledge.  I don’t claim that this necessarily has much if any significance for either theology or the philosophy of science (and I’m no Popperian in any event), only that the parallels seem real.  Make of them what you will.

Advice to Christian Philosophers

My essay “From Justin Martyr to Alvin Plantinga and Back Again: Advice from the First Christian Philosopher” appears in the anthology Advice to Christian Philosophers: Reflections on the Past and Future of Christian Philosophy, edited by (and with an essay by) Christopher Woznicki.  It’s a volume of articles inspired by Alvin Plantinga’s famous essay “Advice to Christian Philosophers,” which is included.  Other contributors include Charity Anderson, Michael Austin, William Lane Craig, Gregory Ganssle, Marina Garner, Paul Gould, Adam Green, Ross Inman, J. P. Moreland, Dolores Morris, Meghan Page, Timothy Pawl, Tim Pickavance, Joshua Rasmussen, Yoon Shin, Peter van Inwagen, Thomas Ward, Greg Welty, Eric Yang, and Linda Zagzebski.  More information here.

Pro-lifers must resist Trump on abortion and IVF

Pro-lifers should rejoice in the defeat of Kamala Harris, and of the Democratic Party, which remains the greatest threat to the unborn in American politics.  But they cannot rest, because their job is only half done.  The second greatest threat has yet to be dealt with, and that is Donald Trump.

Many pro-life Trump supporters will be shocked and angered at such a statement.  But I urge them to resist this emotional reaction and dispassionately consider the cold, hard facts.  Trump supports preserving access to the abortion pill, which is responsible for the majority of abortions in the United States.  Since these pills can be sent by mail into states where abortion is restricted or banned, preserving such access largely undermines recent state-level pro-life measures.  Trump also actively opposes those measures in any event, insisting that they are “too tough” and need to be “redone.”  He has repeatedly said that, even at the state level, abortion must remain legal beyond six weeks.  And he wants the federal government to pay for, or to force insurance companies to pay for, in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments – a practice that results in the destruction of more human embryos than even abortion does.  The only threat to the unborn Trump has clearly and consistently opposed is late-term abortion, which accounts for a mere 1% of abortions.  In short, the policies Trump favors would prevent very few abortions and encourage the discarding of millions of embryos.  True, Trump is much better than Harris in supporting the rights of pro-lifers.  But he is now only a little better in upholding the rights of the unborn.

Progressive Catholics and capital punishment

The debate over capital punishment between conservative and progressive Catholics typically exhibits the following dialectic.  The conservative will set out a case from natural law, scripture and tradition, and social science for the thesis that capital punishment is at least in principle licit and in practice still needed in some circumstances – as Joseph Bessette and I do at length in our book By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed.  The progressive will reply with an impassioned but vague appeal to human dignity, a cherry-picked statement from the recent magisterium, and a tendentious empirical claim (for example, that capital punishment does not deter, or is implemented in a racist manner), and top things off with in an ad hominem attack (such as accusing the conservative of being bloodthirsty or having a political motive).  The conservative will then complain that the progressive has attacked a straw man and simply ignored rather than answered his key points.  The progressive will at this point either ignore the conservative or simply repeat his original, question-begging reply at higher volume.

Augustine, liberalism, and political polarization

In my latest article at Postliberal Order, I discuss the light that Augustine’s account of peace as “the tranquility of order” sheds on the increasing political polarization that characterizes liberal democracies today.

Immortal Souls now available

After some frustrating delays in distribution, my book Immortal Souls: A Treatise on Human Nature is now in stock and available from Amazon and Barnes and Noble.  Here are the back cover copy, endorsements, and table of contents:

Immortal Souls provides as ambitious and complete a defense of Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophical anthropology as is currently in print.  Among the many topics covered are the reality and unity of the self, the immateriality of the intellect, the freedom of the will, the immortality of the soul, the critique of artificial intelligence, and the refutation of both Cartesian and materialist conceptions of human nature.  Along the way, the main rival positions in contemporary philosophy and science are thoroughly engaged with and rebutted.

Abortion and subsidiarity

Ever since the Dobbs decision permitted states to set their own abortion policies, Donald Trump has taken the position that the issue should stay at the state level.  Dobbs itself doesn’t require this, and leaves open the possibility of a federal ban.  But Trump nevertheless declines to pursue such a ban, and indeed is opposed to such a ban.  Now, a federal ban is in any event currently politically unrealistic, and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future.  But some take the view that, even if abortion amounts to murder, it would be wrong to impose a federal ban even if it were politically possible to do so.  They make their case on federalist grounds, arguing that a national abortion ban would usurp power that rightly belongs to the states.  Some argue on natural law grounds, specifically, suggesting that the principle of subsidiarity would rule out a federal ban.  If this were true, then it would follow that even a pro-life Catholic should oppose a federal abortion ban.  What should we think of this argument?

Vinco on Feser in Philosophische Rundschau

German-speaking readers might be interested in Roberto Vinco’s article “Neo-Scholastic Metaphysics in the 21st Century: An Examination of the Perspective of Edward Feser,” in the latest issue of the journal Philosophische Rundschau.

The latest on Immortal Souls

Philosophers William Vallicella and Christopher Kaczor weigh in on my new book Immortal Souls: A Treatise on Human Nature.  At his blog, Bill writes: “Like all of Feser's books, Immortal Souls is a model of expository clarity and analytic precision informed by an extensive knowledge of the contemporary literature.”  At Word on Fire, Chris writes:

The new Aquinas 101

The Thomistic Institute has launched a new Aquinas 101 learning platform for its well-known and excellent series of videos.  Check it out here.  Press release and further information can be found here.

The popesplainer’s safety dance

Pope Francis recently added yet another item to the long list of doctrinally problematic statements he has issued through the course of his pontificate.  Commenting on the plurality of religions during a speech at the Catholic Junior College in Singapore, he said:

If you start arguing, “My religion is more important than yours,” or “Mine is the true one, yours is not true,” where does this lead?  Somebody answer.  [A young person answers, “Destruction”.]  That is correct.  All religions are paths to God.  I will use an analogy, they are like different languages that express the divine.  But God is for everyone, and therefore, we are all God’s children.  “But my God is more important than yours!”  Is this true?  There is only one God, and religions are like languages, paths to reach God.  Some Sikh, some Muslim, some Hindu, some Christian.

As the article from which I quote this passage notes, while the Vatican’s initial English translation of the pope’s words attempted to sanitize them, it was later corrected to make it clear that this is indeed what the pope said.  And what he said flatly contradicts traditional Catholic teaching.  Francis criticizes those who take one religion to be the true or most important one, and implies that Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc. are as equal as different languages are.